Evidence for God from Science

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Why is this not a valid question, why not use the same sequence for all the organisms? Why are there differences in the differences?
Let take language as an example. The cytochrome C of an aligator is like chinese. That of a Baboon is like German, and that of a leopard is like french. Upon analysis we can say that french and german are more similar than chinese is to either.

This is what I mean you are trying to tell me that there is no reason to analyse this information because it is meaningless.

Similarities between creations do exist. Why would you say (in effect) that they mean that God didn't create here, and how would this somehow mean evolution must have happened? What tells you that the simolarities must be the one, not the other?

I did not say that God did not create them, don't forget the original assertion of Jbuza's that cytochron C supports his beleifs. I am providing the evidence so that he can give me an alternate explanation and show how this is so.

Here is an image showing you the cytochron C sequences of various species lined up.


As you can see a turkey and a duck share much more than would be expected if as quoted earlier.

jbuza wrote:For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

Yet they do. Why would this have been done if as jbuza also quoted before.

jbuza wrote:It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein

How else can this be explained?

Well let me handle some of your comments, but I won't include them to be brief. It is hard for me to show you evidence of creation because all roads lead to evolution for you. The theory of evolution is like what a palm reader might tell you. As I said before evolution has the answer for the likenesses and the differences in cytochrome C so it isn't even falsifiable for you.

You have yet to show me how differences in cytochrome C support evolution. You might think my sugar analogy was absurd, but I find yours about evolution to be equally so. Researchers have made computer generated charts of Cytochrome C differences and created a phylogenetic descent out of it, and claim the chart is independent verification of evolution. You have given me nothing.

In reference to what you said, “As I am sure you would appreciate that there are many more quotes contrary to your position than supporting them.—Bgood” Uh no I don't think so. OF course when you start quoting someone else's conclusions perhaps, but the evidence itself is not supportive of one unproven theory anymore than it is another.

BY all means I don't want to stop investigating. You think that because I find the conclusion of a chart based on evolution to be evolution that means that I am not in favor of logical application of reason in the discovery of truth? You think that because I reject the generated charts as evidence for evolution means that I see no need to discover the natural world?

I have given you evidence, but it all points to evolution for you, so if you are so set in your ways, and feel that evolution can explain everything, than it is no wonder that you see no evidence of anything besides your predetermined conclusion. Random evolution of the ages would expect a more random distribution of the 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible protein chains that could work for cytochrome C. The Cytochrome C types that we see show the order that your charts show, but it is more evidence for Intelligent design than for chance. The evidence is there and if you are so married to evolution that you can no longer be objective, than I have no help for you. Evolution doesn't explain that all living things show the same process when random mutations should develop far more varied life forms.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: As you can see a turkey and a duck share much more than would be expected if as quoted earlier.

jbuza wrote:For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

Yet they do. Why would this have been done if as jbuza also quoted before.

jbuza wrote:It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein

How else can this be explained?

My point exactley thank you. Your theory is the one of chance, so you explain to me what you are asking of me. My theory doesn't expect the astronomical chance, but eons of mutation does. Indeed how else but by design do we see this realtionship?

Again I point out that we have nothing here more than similar animals are more similar to similar animals than they are similar to less similar animals. IT really blows my mind that you think this together with computer generated phylogenetic trees is evidence of evolution. I would be somewhat more convinced if Things appeared far more random.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: As you can see a turkey and a duck share much more than would be expected if as quoted earlier.

jbuza wrote:For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

Yet they do. Why would this have been done if as jbuza also quoted before.

jbuza wrote:It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein

How else can this be explained?

My point exactley thank you. Your theory is the one of chance, so you explain to me what you are asking of me. My theory doesn't expect the astronomical chance, but eons of mutation does. Indeed how else but by design do we see this realtionship?

Well lets examine the evidence.

here's a duck
GDVEKGKKIF VQKCSQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAEGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKSE RADLIAYLKD ATAK
GDIEKGKKIF VQKCSQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAEGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKSE RVDLIAYLKD ATSK
here's a turkey

now a rabbit
GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAVGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKDE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
GDVEKGKKIF VQKCSQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAEGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKSE RADLIAYLKD ATAK
and a duck again

Now lets examine language which I think you would agree are related to each other.
Examine the differences between greek and aramaic, And the difference between aramaic and arabic and I think you would come to the conclusion that arabic is more closely related to aramaic that either are to greek. Would you not agree? I think you would also agree that all of these languages originated from a single shared ancestral language.

Jbuza wrote:Well let me handle some of your comments, but I won't include them to be brief. It is hard for me to show you evidence of creation because all roads lead to evolution for you. The theory of evolution is like what a palm reader might tell you. As I said before evolution has the answer for the likenesses and the differences in cytochrome C so it isn't even falsifiable for you.

You resort to trying to undermine the theory of evolution, when you know as well as I do that your original assertion was that the evidence supported your case. This can be done without referring to my argument.

Jbuza wrote:You have yet to show me how differences in cytochrome C support evolution. You might think my sugar analogy was absurd, but I find yours about evolution to be equally so.

Care to show me where the analysis reached this point of absurdity?

Jbuza wrote:Researchers have made computer generated charts of Cytochrome C differences and created a phylogenetic descent out of it, and claim the chart is independent verification of evolution. You have given me nothing.

I disagree I gave you, the actual data from which the charts were formulated, so that you can come up with a counter explanation of your own.

Jbuza wrote:In reference to what you said, “As I am sure you would appreciate that there are many more quotes contrary to your position than supporting them.—Bgood” Uh no I don't think so. OF course when you start quoting someone else's conclusions perhaps, but the evidence itself is not supportive of one unproven theory anymore than it is another.

I am beginning to question if you have even looked at the data I have supplied you with.

Jbuza wrote:BY all means I don't want to stop investigating. You think that because I find the conclusion of a chart based on evolution to be evolution that means that I am not in favor of logical application of reason in the discovery of truth? You think that because I reject the generated charts as evidence for evolution means that I see no need to discover the natural world?

These are not charts they are the actual gene sequences of the various animals.

Jbuza wrote:I have given you evidence, but it all points to evolution for you, so if you are so set in your ways, and feel that evolution can explain everything, than it is no wonder that you see no evidence of anything besides your predetermined conclusion.

On the contrary quotes are not evidence. You have made your position clear but you have not made clear what evidence supports your position.

Jbuza wrote:Random evolution of the ages would expect a more random distribution of the 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible protein chains that could work for cytochrome C.

No they would not evolution would expect related species to have more similarities than differences. Just as you have more similarities to your father than you do a stranger you meet on the bus.

Jbuza wrote:The Cytochrome C types that we see show the order that your charts show, but it is more evidence for Intelligent design than for chance.

Please show me how, I insist. A declaration is not enough for me. And are you now an intelligent design proponent?

Jbuza wrote:The evidence is there and if you are so married to evolution that you can no longer be objective, than I have no help for you.

All you have done is profess your opinions I have seen no evidence, nor any counter theories.

Jbuza wrote:Evolution doesn't explain that all living things show the same process when random mutations should develop far more varied life forms.

This according to whom?

I will repeat again your assertion was that this evidence was also proof for your case as well. Yet you continually sidestep this. The data is there, please show how this is evidence for your case.

All life arose from sugar.
Sugar somehow mutated and evolved over eons of time and is now represented by all of life.
I have generated this chart prooving this <imagine chart>, see those animals and plants with greateat availability of sugars to their cells are more closely related to sugar, and see how these distant ones with less sugar are more recently in common decent, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I have no idea why suger will no lnoger create life, or what force once caused it to, but we will just ignore that and preach the truth of it everywhere we go.

All life arose from mitochondria
Mitochondria somehow mutated and evolved over eons of time and is now represented in nearly all life
We have generated a phylogenetic tree see how this duck and this turkey have more common cytochrome C, see how this pig and this duck have less similar cytochrom C Blah, Blah, Blah
I have no idea why mitochondria will no longer create life, or what force once caused it to, but we will just ignore that and preach the truth of it everywhere we go.

Jbuza wrote:All life arose from sugar.
Sugar somehow mutated and evolved over eons of time and is now represented by all of life.
I have generated this chart prooving this <imagine chart>, see those animals and plants with greateat availability of sugars to their cells are more closely related to sugar, and see how these distant ones with less sugar are more recently in common decent, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I have no idea why suger will no lnoger create life, or what force once caused it to, but we will just ignore that and preach the truth of it everywhere we go.

All life arose from mitochondria
Mitochondria somehow mutated and evolved over eons of time and is now represented in nearly all life
We have generated a phylogenetic tree see how this duck and this turkey have more common cytochrome C, see how this pig and this duck have less similar cytochrom C Blah, Blah, Blah
I have no idea why mitochondria will no longer create life, or what force once caused it to, but we will just ignore that and preach the truth of it everywhere we go.

Mitochondria did not create life. It is an organelle.

It is found in all eukaryotic cells. Somehow an early bacteria like organism became symbiotic with a protoeukaryotype.
The chances of this occuring more than once is the reason why many think that all eukaryotic life originated from a common ancestor. Once in place any reoccurance of this sort would be unable to compete with estabilished eukaryotic lifeforms.



In any case your imaginary example relies on imaginary data. The cytochrome C data is very real.

And again I can see that you are sidestepping the issue with attacks without comming up with any analysis of your own.

There is nothing wrong with saying I don't know.

I am not sure what you are trying to get at with your language analogy. Are you saying that the languages that were designed by intelligence show a crude sort of ancestry therefore chance evolution? It seems like you are arguing more for creation. Thanks though I will take that point.

You seem to not understand how in a created world more similar creatures would be more similar than they would be from less similar creatures. I don't get that you still don't understand this. The evidence is that creatures that were created more similarly are more similar. Are you so ignorant of creation that you cannot see that two birds would be more similar than a bird and a cow? IF everything were created exactly as we see it would the cytochrome c comparison be any different?

I have tried to say that cytochrome C is evidence of, but you seem to be blinded or something. Cytochrome C shows that more similar animals are more similar. That is all it shows. I have said it more than once. I'm not sure why you are pressing the matter. But you do, you press it by saying see we have constructed this tree based upon similar animals being similar and therefore evolution. IT'S nothing, but since you continue to press the matter. Here goes.

See how similar animals have similar cytochrome C well you see this Chart in Genesis where it says that there are birds, and there are land animals, and they will reproduce after their kind. Well look the animals with similar cytochrome c are animals of similar types.

The argument is equally weak in support of either theory, in my opinion. Again in case you missed it, the only thing that the cytochrome c comparison shows is similarity of similar creatures. It's as if you think that for creation to be true than the most dissimilar creature would be most similar to the least similar creature or something equally nonsensical. Cytochrome C comparisons while interesting and hopefully useful are nothing evidentiarially for either evolution or creation.

I would just as soon move onto the next subject matter on the list, unless you feel there is some revelation I have missed.

Bgood Wrote
No, cellular respiration predates all multicellular life, thus the ability to measure cytochrome C differentiation.
Not quite the reasoning is that differences between the proteins are proportional to the time since common descent. Since aerobic respiration predates all multicellular life.
The theory suggests that aerobic evolution proceeds multicellular life, therefore the comparisons can be made.
It's not a problem for evolution, as I stated before all multicellular life is thought to have evolved after the biochemistry of aerobic life had been estabilished


Well I thought I understood, but than you threw this at me see below
__
Bgood Wrote
Mitochondria did not create life. It is an organelle.


So are you arguing whichever side refutes my points best? Did cytochrome C start life by itself or was it within some support structure like an organelle containing all the systems necessary for phosphyorylation and mitochondriatic respiration?
_

All life arose from sugar.
Sugar somehow mutated and evolved over eons of time and is now represented by all of life.
I have generated this chart prooving this <imagine chart>, see those animals and plants with greateat availability of sugars to their cells are more closely related to sugar, and see how these distant ones with less sugar are more recently in common decent, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I have no idea why suger will no lnoger create life, or what force once caused it to, but we will just ignore that and preach the truth of it everywhere we go.

All life arose from mitochondria or some simpler organism capable of anaerobic respiration.
Mitochondria somehow mutated and evolved over eons of time and is now represented in nearly all life
We have generated a phylogenetic tree see how this duck and this turkey have more common cytochrome C, see how this pig and this duck have less similar cytochrom C Blah, Blah, Blah
I have no idea why mitochondria or some simpler organism capable of anaerobic respiration will no longer create life, or what force once caused it to, but we will just ignore that and preach the truth of it everywhere we go.


I assure you the information isn't imaginary one can indeed measure the availability of sugars. AS you can see I have adjusted the mitochondria example above, but it seems absurd as life arising from sugar still.


I was done, but we cross posted and I haven't learned to keep my mouth shut

Jbuza wrote:I am not sure what you are trying to get at with your language analogy. Are you saying that the languages that were designed by intelligence show a crude sort of ancestry therefore chance evolution? It seems like you are arguing more for creation. Thanks though I will take that point.

Languages change over time, what may I ask you is it that causes languages to change. And who is directing this change?

Jbuza wrote:You seem to not understand how in a created world more similar creatures would be more similar than they would be from less similar creatures.

No I would think that analagous parts which are interchangable would be the same. The cytocrome C in a human works just fine in a yeast bacteria as you quoted earlier, so why are they different?

Jbuza wrote:I don't get that you still don't understand this. The evidence is that creatures that were created more similarly are more similar. Are you so ignorant of creation that you cannot see that two birds would be more similar than a bird and a cow?

Why use a different screw for each brand of microwave?

Jbuza wrote:IF everything were created exactly as we see it would the cytochrome c comparison be any different?

I don't follow.

Jbuza wrote:I have tried to say that cytochrome C is evidence of, but you seem to be blinded or something. Cytochrome C shows that more similar animals are more similar. That is all it shows. I have said it more than once. I'm not sure why you are pressing the matter. But you do, you press it by saying see we have constructed this tree based upon similar animals being similar and therefore evolution. IT'S nothing, but since you continue to press the matter. Here goes.

See how similar animals have similar cytochrome C well you see this Chart in Genesis where it says that there are birds, and there are land animals, and they will reproduce after their kind. Well look the animals with similar cytochrome c are animals of similar types.

Like I stated earlier the protein functions identically among the different organisms, why not use the same protein for each?

Jbuza wrote:The argument is equally weak in support of either theory, in my opinion. Again in case you missed it, the only thing that the cytochrome c comparison shows is similarity of similar creatures. It's as if you think that for creation to be true than the most dissimilar creature would be most similar to the least similar creature or something equally nonsensical.

I would expect different organisms to be using the same parts yes.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
No, cellular respiration predates all multicellular life, thus the ability to measure cytochrome C differentiation.
Not quite the reasoning is that differences between the proteins are proportional to the time since common descent. Since aerobic respiration predates all multicellular life.
The theory suggests that aerobic evolution proceeds multicellular life, therefore the comparisons can be made.
It's not a problem for evolution, as I stated before all multicellular life is thought to have evolved after the biochemistry of aerobic life had been estabilished


Well I thought I understood, but than you threw this at me see below
__
Bgood Wrote
Mitochondria did not create life. It is an organelle.

So are you arguing whichever side refutes my points best? Did cytochrome C start life by itself or was it within some support structure like an organelle containing all the systems necessary for phosphyorylation and mitochondriatic respiration?

When was it ever stated that cytochrome C started life? Read back you will not find this statement.

Jbuza wrote:Cytochrome C comparisons while interesting and hopefully useful are nothing evidentiarially for either evolution or creation.

So now you back away from your original assertion. Very well lets move on to the next item.

Bgood Wrote
No, cellular respiration predates all multicellular life, thus the ability to measure cytochrome C differentiation.
Not quite the reasoning is that differences between the proteins are proportional to the time since common descent. Since aerobic respiration predates all multicellular life.
The theory suggests that aerobic evolution proceeds multicellular life, therefore the comparisons can be made.
It's not a problem for evolution, as I stated before all multicellular life is thought to have evolved after the biochemistry of aerobic life had been estabilished


So then what did start life? From the four quotes from your earlier posts you seem to indicate that mitochondria predate multicellular life. Just in case your not sure what started life, see my posts on sugar.


From your most recent comments I guess you think that every painting done by leonardo should have had mona lisa's smile? Or that every sculpture by Micheal Angelo should have been of David. I'm not sure why you think that every cytochrome c sequence should be identical given creation? There is no reason to think that a varied creation shouldn't be varied. I simply don't understand why you think this is more supportive of evolution than it is creation Given the possible working combinations why should they be so similar. I feel cytochrome C comparisons support creation. Creations more similar are more similar in cytochrome C.

I mean I can argue the same things against evolution that you have argued aginst me and it is more convincingly damning of evolution. Since my theory states that there are numerous occourances of life independantly shouldn't there be numerous different combinations of cytochrome C? Given evolution with an admitted singular instance of life why shouldn't cytochrome C be the same for all things in an evolved world? You expect it to be the same amongst a creation, yet you allow for it to be different in your creation. I do not back down from my position.

Jbuza wrote:

Matthew_O wrote: Where is the scientific evidence for Creationism? Can you please detail any of it?

2.) Psuedogene consistency in primates

Lets move on to the next topic. You asserted that Psuedogene consistency in primates was scientific evidence for creationism.
I will give a short description below of what exactly this is and you are welcome to explain how this evidence supports your claim.

A pseudogene is like a corrupted gene. It is not a working copy. Think of it like an old school book in which the cover fell off and pages are missing.
Like cytochrome C closely related organisms are consistent in the pseudogenes found in their DNA.

A case in point is with primates and their ability or more rather inability to synthesize vitamin C. In other organisms there is a gene which translates to an enzyme capable of synthesizing vitamin C. A psuedogene can be found in primate genetic code which corresponds to this gene.

Bgood Wrote
A pseudogene is like a corrupted gene. It is not a working copy. Think of it like an old school book in which the cover fell off and pages are missing. Like cytochrome C closely related organisms are consistent in the pseudogenes found in their DNA.


Two comments
Ok I think I have demonstrated that similar creations will be more similar already.
Stop the work we have all the answers. Just because you label them pseudogenes doesn't mean they have some as yet undiscovered function. Just like the appendix was once thought to be a vestigial organ, but it was discoveredt hat it has functions.

So I first have a problem with them being called pseudogenes. Yes it is true that Primates, Humans, and Guinea Pigs (at least) lack the capability to synthesize Vitamin C. Last I checked the Guinea pig wasn't a primate, but yes it's true. Can you describe how this proves evolution? Since my original post in reply to these “proofs” was in the spirit that they are equal proof for creation, I would like to know to what extent I am supposed to be proving creation.

Aside from that issue I will investigate this issue some, and post my thoughts on how creation explains the observation, but would appreciate the same from evolution.

I know you didn't want me to quote other scientists, but as I have no laboratory or subjects to test on to verify similarities in Genetic sequences amongst these animals you will just have to settle for this quote I guess.



Other authors have estimated that the guinea pig lost Gulo function [ability to synthesize Vitamin C] less than 20 million years ago. In contrast, the separate inactivation of the Gulo gene in primates allegedly occurred between the time of simian-prosimian divergence (50-65 million years ago) but before the Old/New world monkey divergence (35-45 million years ago).

In fact, the similarities he describes suggest that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to prosimian primates or to other rodents. (Many scientists argue that guinea pigs are not rodents like rats, shrews and mice.) There is no apparent reason to question the validity of this new information, which certainly seems to falsify the pseudogene 'shared mistakes' argument.

The striking degree of identicalness between the 'lesions' of presumably non-functional pseudogenes, unrelated by evolutionary ancestry, clearly dispenses with organic evolution as a necessary explanation for this overall phenomenon. Moreover, it reopens the consideration of such pseudogenes being one-time functional genes that became independently disabled sometime after the Fall.
http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/ind ... 3&Itemid=1

Presumably this occurred separately in guinea pig and primate ancestors whose natural diets were so rich in ascorbic acid that the absence of GLO enzyme activity was not a disadvantage--it did not cause selective pressure against the defective gene.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/


Is there some reason why this wouldn't work in a created world? If abundance of vitamin C in the diets of Human's and Guinea Pigs can account for genetic change, than the genetic sequences could have changed. I don't see how this provides any more evidence for evolutionary origins than it does ofr creationist origins.

I think we need a break for pie. All this scientific schtuff is seriously freaking me out.